The curent situation in Mali with the Islamist forces is in large part blowback from Libya. So much for that intervention. And the Islamist/Al Qaeda threat is just an excuse to intervene in Mali and West Africa. It's really all about natural resources. France relies greatly upon nuclear power and French companies operate uranium mines in Mali and Niger. They can't risk losing control of these deposit. Another major benefactor of this intervention will be China who has invested $billions in this region in order to gain access to the resources. But just like Afghanistan the American public will have their fears of terrorism stoked in order to accede to the desires of imperialistic gain.

Wayne 985:I think there's a difference between The Taliban: Redux and a bunch of commies trying to change the economic and political leadership of their country. That difference being that the former is an atrocity in itself and the latter is just unfortunate.

That's odd. I think there's a difference between the two also, and the difference is that in point of atrocity Al Qaida doesn't even approach the Communists. Perhaps this is too far in the past to win your appreciation, the millions of people stripped of their possessions and sent trudging into oblivion to die of hunger or exposure or to be worked to death in labor camps. The works of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and their ilk put Bin Ladin's in the shade. Communism embodied a threat incomparably beyond the bumbling, ignorant religious freaks that so frighten the fat, comfortable Westerners of today. Al Qaida commands a primitive rabble with improvised explosives. The Commies together fielded the largest military force the world has seen, including nuclear subs, ICBMs, and the hydrogen bomb.

Yes, there is a difference in the magnitude of the threat. There is no difference in the willingness of certain people to menace the public with it in order to win support for their adventures. Neither is there any difference in the naive credulity of people who accept that such adventures are necessary (or even helpful) in gaining safety from the threat.

GAT_00:I would think Subby would be happy since this is going after Al-Queda. Communists

That would make Vietnam cool retrospectively. After all, opposing the Commies in Vietnam was as vital to national security as opposing Al Qaida in Outer Absurdia is today. We all know what would have become of our freedoms had the Reds taken over in 'Nam. And, of course, we can be sure that our government today is being as honest with the nation every time they cry "Al Qaida!" in order to justify intervention as they were 50 years ago when the cry was "Communists!"

ferretman:A very important thing everyone has to remember....it's okay when Obama does it.

And Europe.

Notice it's never a huge moral problem when European nations preemptively strike nations because they might maybe be a threat someday in the future. But America is the debil if we invade after already being attacked.

PunGent:jehovahs witness protection: If W did it, the Fark commies would be calling for his head.You can all eat shiat and die now.

One of the many, many problems with invading Iraq was that Saddam, despite his later financial support for Muslim terrorists in Israel, actually killed more Muslim fundamentalists than all the neocon wetdream hardliners on the planet combined.

/exploit that Shia/Sunni split, get 'em to kill each other//unless you can point to something useful Islam has done in the last few centuries

Oil in north Mali, gold and uranium in southwest Mali. And a backup plan for Halliburton, KBR and that crowd just in case Afghanistan peters out. Yeah, beware the military industrial complex.Just Another OC Homeless Guy :Wait wait wait! Why isn't Obama stopping this?

Why did Obama expand the occupation of Afghanistan and keep Cheney's hand chosen puppet Karzai in power? You could explain it away that he went along with what was going on to get re-elected. But now this. Looks like there isn't much real difference between the political parties when it comes to foreign policy. They're both owned by somebody, and it's not the citizens of the USA, the vast majority of whom are against crapola like this. Especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.

Everyone, including the recognized government of the country in question, agreed it was the right thing to do.Collective legitimization isn't perfect, but it's a good medium between an interventionist free-for-all and totally giving up the offensive to the assholes of the world.

Well... sort of. People have a right to organize their societies how they see fit. Some of the stuff they do might seem grotesque or idiotic to us. However, we wouldn't appreciate it if they imposed their will and values on us. And they don't appreciate it when we do the same to them.

Some people insist that it's racist or bigoted to suggest that not every place in the world can be Vermont or Switzerland. On the other hand, if they don't want to be Vermont or Switzerland, and they're not f--king with us, we should let 'em be. F--king with them is very expensive in blood and treasure. Especially if there's no point to it.

We need to look at the lessons we have learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, they might get a nuke from the Russkies. And if they have a country, that's certainly a problem. But if they have a country, their assets might be easier to monitor and destroy. And once they get some ground and assets they're trying to defend, and consolidate their leaders into palaces, they might be easier to decapitate and destroy the weapons.

Reality is that we're our own worst enemy. It's kind of clever how we're printing money (have the US Central Bank (the Federal Reserve) buy US government debt), and it'll work for a while. But if we don't get our finances in order, debt and money printing will not increase the level of wealth in our society. We've taken half of Keynes prescription - we're happy to deficit spend, but we're totally unwilling to pay down the debt in the good years.

Al Qaeda needs to be stopped at all costs. I would gladly volunteer for front line action except I'm technically disabled from the army for previous war time injuries. Al Qaeda is a threat to all mankind. Even liberals.

hasty ambush:GAT_00: I would think Subby would be happy since this is going after Al-Queda.

The U.S. is considering a range of options to help, including sending cargo aircrafts to lift more French ground troops into Mali, providing air refueling tankers for French air combat patrols, and offering intelligence gleaned from aerial surveillance.

Oh yeah, that's some real close involvement there.

That is how our involvement in Nam started.

"In November 1951, the US provided the French with an initial supply of 20 C-27s which would build to 116 by war's end in 1954. USAF crews delivered the aircraft, usually flying them in to Nha Trang, Vietnam from Clark AB, Philippines. These would be for tactical airlift. But France lacked the pilots and maintenance crews.

Since the French were short on pilots, the US turned to CAT, which by 1952, was owned by the CIA lock, stock and barrel. CAT pilots began flying a heavy schedule of transport missions for the French. These were combat missions flown by American civilians in every sense of the word. They routinely flew into combat zones, dropped supplies to the French, and dropped French paratroopers. They took their share of hostile fire.

The French also lacked the strategic airlift needed to get their troops form France to Vietnam. In April, the USAF's 62nd Troop Carrier Wing (TCW) flew French forces from France to Indochina aboard C-124 Globemaster IIs."

Link

Yep.

Even without the CIA hyperbole and domino theory nonsense that was prevalent back in 1952...the idea was that we were helping our allies in a bad situation and it couldn't POSSIBLY turn out badly because all we were doing was assisting the French fight an insurgency that had ties to Red China (nevermind that Ho Chi Minh's fighters helped us against the Japanese) and all we were doing was giving them a little support. And some advisors. Well, and some artillery and planes. Oh, and some extra personnel. And some backup to evacuate their wounded later on. And then...

GAT_00:I would think Subby would be happy since this is going after Al-Queda.

The U.S. is considering a range of options to help, including sending cargo aircrafts to lift more French ground troops into Mali, providing air refueling tankers for French air combat patrols, and offering intelligence gleaned from aerial surveillance.

Oh yeah, that's some real close involvement there.

That is how our involvement in Nam started.

"In November 1951, the US provided the French with an initial supply of 20 C-27s which would build to 116 by war's end in 1954. USAF crews delivered the aircraft, usually flying them in to Nha Trang, Vietnam from Clark AB, Philippines. These would be for tactical airlift. But France lacked the pilots and maintenance crews.

Since the French were short on pilots, the US turned to CAT, which by 1952, was owned by the CIA lock, stock and barrel. CAT pilots began flying a heavy schedule of transport missions for the French. These were combat missions flown by American civilians in every sense of the word. They routinely flew into combat zones, dropped supplies to the French, and dropped French paratroopers. They took their share of hostile fire.

The French also lacked the strategic airlift needed to get their troops form France to Vietnam. In April, the USAF's 62nd Troop Carrier Wing (TCW) flew French forces from France to Indochina aboard C-124 Globemaster IIs."